Cold Wars 2014

[Simpleton]

Time to plan Cold Wars 2014. Tournament super overlord Scott Holder needs our events by Dec 13th, which means we have about 10 days to discuss ideas and figure out who is doing what. Remember this is a full four day convention, so think of event(s) for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Jeff Fletcher would like to be the boss this go round and I have no problems with that. Jeff Wiltrout ran the everyone but Europe event last year. My suggestion to get things started would be to have a scenario game on Thursday afternoon in 15mm with some decent terrain. This should be aimed at newbies to help teach the rules, but have at least one experienced player to inspire each side (not micro-manage). Friday and Saturday are tournament days. I suggest you have an open and a theme. What runs on what days and what the theme is I leave to you guys, but don't forget 25mm players. If you even get just 4 players, this is enough for a small round robin. Another possibility would be running the theme and open on the same day like we just did at Fall-In. Let me know Jeff F. if you are 100% on running things. I would deputize Jeff W. so you don't get burnt out running everything, and see if you can get Walt Leach, Kevin Swanson, and/or Dan Hazelwood to be your scenario game Divas. People who run events get classified as GM's and get easier registration and free convention tags. I have an email from Scott with event forms that I will forward to the FOGR event boss, and then each event should be listed under its own coordinator for GM purposes.

[hercimurthemediocre]

Yes, I would like to be the "boss" (for the lack of a better title. I posted a proposed format for all FOGX tournament gaming on the North American FOG yahoo group. I can re-post here if it is helpful. Keep in mind, it is just a proposal at the moment and I'd like to avoid carrying on posting and re-posting in various forums lest folks get the idea that it is a done deal.

[Simpleton]

Yes, I would repost it here. Some people read one forum, others read both. I use this one since the authors post here (read the proposed update for game balance, very important for 17th century armies, hint, hint).

UncleMeat

[hercimurthemediocre]

I should have thought twice before making the offer to re-post. Anyway, the conversation is on the North American FOG yahoo group. I would direct your replies to that site as it is a discussion involving all FOG tournaments at Cold Wars. Anyway, here it is.

This is my proposal on how to run the FOG tournaments at Cold Wars:

Name the event "FOG tournament gaming." The tournament rounds would be divided into 3 time blocks per day on Friday and Saturday (exact times TBD ATM.)

Subheadder would read "play from one to six games in the FOG rules set(s) and scale(s) of your choice."

Players would:

Commit to play from one to six games (they can play more if they decide to later)

Name their period (AM, R, or N) list, year, and scale for each army they wish to play. They would also declare how many games that they want to play with that army from the minimum to a maximum of three. (For example, I could say that I want to play FOGR, Later Polish , 1650, 25mm, 2-3 games. That would mean that that I am committing to play at least two games and up to three games with that army.) Also, the order in which you list your armies would indicate your preference to play that army

Players could also designate specific time blocks during which they would be unavailable. (For example, if I want to have plenty of time to shop the dealer's area and flea market, then I would state that I am unavailable for the afternoon block on Friday and/or Saturday.) One caveat, I would strongly suggest that players do not make themselves unavailable for the Saturday evening block so that players in contention could be more easily matched.

The deadline for advance submissions would be by Feb. 28. Advance submissions would be given priority over late submissions and priority given to late submissions in order of the time that they are received.

Match-ups would be made by closeness in year and geographical location where possible.

To determine tournament victory, each player's top three scores would be counted. (So, to be eligible to "win," you would have to play in at least 3 games and your chances are better the more games that you play.) Players can state that they wish to compete or simply just want to play when they commit to the number of games that they will play. I would make every effort to pair competitive players against one and other, especially in the final round.

Hopefully I have worded this properly. My intention is to allow players to play any of the three FOG rules sets in different scales so long as opponents are available. Flexibility in what players would be willing to play would be greatly appreciated (and even expected from some of you ) For example, a (my) submission is going to look something like this:

6 games (just want to play.)
I want to play:
FOGR, Later Polish , 1650, 25mm, 2-3 games.
FOGAM, Early Crusader, 1100AD, 25mm, 2-3 games.
FOGN, Austrian, 1809, 15mm, 2-3 games.
I am willing to play:
FOGR, Later Thirty Years War German, 1640, 15mm, 2-3 games.
FOGAM, Hunnic, 350AD, 15mm, 2-3 games.

So, with that submission, the organizer (myself) would first attempt to place this player in 2 games each of his first three choices. If that is not possible, then I would attempt to pair him with another opponent in the order he has listed by priority. Say, for instance, that only one 25mm AM opponent was available in 25mm. I would then attempt to pair him with a third 25mm R opponent, then a third 15mm N opponent, then a 15mm R opponent, etc.

I think I have given enough of a framework to understand how this would work. I think that the main challenge would be in getting players to commit/submit on time. I also anticipate a lot of work, communication, headache, and frustration to make this happen (I, for one, feel it is worth it if more folks can play in more games with the armies/rules that they want to play.) Feel free to criticize and/or make suggestions.

[hercimurthemediocre]

Yes, I would repost it here. Some people read one forum, others read both. I use this one since the authors post here (read the proposed update for game balance, very important for 17th century armies, hint, hint).

UncleMeat

Could you link or direct me to that? I searched around a bit but I am not exactly sure what specific proposal you are referring to.

[Simpleton]

Yes, I would repost it here. Some people read one forum, others read both. I use this one since the authors post here (read the proposed update for game balance, very important for 17th century armies, hint, hint).

UncleMeat

Could you link or direct me to that? I searched around a bit but I am not exactly sure what specific proposal you are referring to.

Here it is
viewtopic.php?f=70&t=46423

BTW, I can delegate to you running FOGR, but have you spoken to the FOG AM folks? They usually run their own stuff. Are you saying you will run matchups for all gamers in 15mm and 25mm playing ANY FOG rules?

[hercimurthemediocre]

yes, and yes.

[hercimurthemediocre]

BTW, is this the proposal that you are referring to?

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=46575

If so, that's fine by me. I don't anticipate this becoming a problem for us in our neck of the woods, but you never know.